LXI: What Preaching Means to Me

Before I begin, I would like to remind everyone that this comes from one who has been a Christian for nine years now, who preached part-time for six years and is in his third year of full-time work. There's your caveat emptor. :)

I did not intend on being an evangelist. From sixth grade onwards I wanted to be an Egyptologist. I amassed (thanks to my parents) an impressive collection of Egyptological books, studied French, Latin, and Greek in high school toward that endeavor, and was accepted to and matriculated at the University of Chicago, home of the famous Oriental Institute, having one of the greatest Egyptology departments in the country.

As I reflect, however, it is apparent that God had other plans for me.

I became a Christian in 1999, just before I graduated from high school. I spent much time discussing matters of the faith with people of all kinds of religious backgrounds, and read continually in the Bible and other resources. By the time I entered college I was spending more time on religious matters than educational ones.

While assembling with the brethren of the Hessville church in Hammond, Indiana, I was encouraged to try my hand at preaching. At that point, it was the furthest thing from my mind-- I wasn't ready for it yet. They encouraged me, and I got up and did so. "Foundations of the Faith" was my first lesson, actually written over a couple of hours before I was to present it, and it lasted 35 minutes.

Soon after the preacher there left, and I ended up preaching on denominational errors on Sunday evenings for weeks on end. It was apparent to everyone else where I was heading, but not me. Even though I could have been doing better in school, I still intended to complete my course of study.

By May of 2000 I recognized that I needed to change course, and that's when I determined to become an evangelist.

I did part-time preaching when possible for a few years, returned to school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and by the end of 2005 I was getting ready to wrap up my degree and to begin full-time work.

I began to do much praying regarding the matter, and I consciously left it up to God. After all, if I was going to be His servant in preaching His Gospel, I'd better go where He wills, and not necessarily where I would go. Northern Ohio was not on my radar screen at that particular juncture. But I believe that I am where God would have me to be.

I begin by giving my personal story so far because I believe that preaching the Gospel-- the work of the evangelist-- is one of the most important works that can be done, and one with great responsibility. It is the subject of much confusion and misunderstandings, and while it can be done by some in a halfway manner, it is only worth doing when it is done right.

I, personally, cannot imagine doing anything else. After over two years and plenty of hours invested it still does not really feel like work. I feel as if I'm doing what I want to do and would do anyway and I have the blessing of getting support for doing so.

That attitude supports me in the difficult and testing times that come with evangelism.

What does all this matter? It gets down to an essential point: a a calling. I recognize that we are hesitant to talk about a "calling," since the denominational world often takes the concept and abuses it. It would seem that in the eyes of many, people sit around and God gives them some kind of call to be a preacher. I believe that we serve a God who is much more creative than that, and we should not deny a Biblical truth because of denominational distortions.

Evangelists need to have a calling to the work. God is the one who should be appointing us for His service, as Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:12, and not the other way around. The imperative of promoting the Kingdom of God must be deeply felt within the preacher, so that he is like Paul, and can declare, "woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:16), or be like Jeremiah, as he declares in Jeremiah 20:9:

And if I say, "I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name," then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with forbearing, and I cannot contain.

There must be passion for the work of God and devotion to His purposes and His purposes alone. There must be love, care, and compassion for God's people, and the preacher needs to have the "concern for the churches" like Paul did (2 Corinthians 11:28)

I cannot understand how anyone would be a preacher for the money. I do recognize that one can live decently as a preacher, but the effort (that should be) expended is never worth the money made. The work requires humility and the willingness to serve in ways that may go unrecognized or that one feels is "beneath them." Money alone cannot sustain a preacher in the work!

Neither can fame or notoriety. I fear that too many aspiring preachers become enamored with the pulpit and the accolades that come from preaching. Some may not really understand the encouragement that brethren are offering, and believe themselves to be better preachers than they are in reality. Some may not see how the work is that difficult-- after all, you "only work four hours a week," and people compliment you for it!

While I have no problem owning up to the description of "preacher" or "gospel preacher," I prefer the term "evangelist," and for this very reason. What should be understood by the preacher-- and sometimes less so by members-- is that preaching is really one of the least of the tasks of the evangelist.

What is an evangelist, anyway? The term involves one who promotes the "evangel", that is, the "good news," or the Gospel. The evangelist promotes the Gospel of Christ and His Kingdom.

As I see it, the evangelist has two main areas in which to do this.

1. Promotion of the Gospel of Christ and His Kingdom in the midst of the Kingdom.

Part of the work of the evangelist is to promote the Gospel of Christ and the Kingdom in the midst of its citizens-- the church (cf. Philippians 3:20). The evangelist does so by preaching the Word of God from the pulpit, encouraging, rebuking, instructing, and exhorting as appropriate (cf. 2 Timothy 4:2). This also occurs in instruction in Bible classes, personal studies, group studies, or other such forums (cf. Acts 2:42). The evangelist is also there to encourage the members themselves, perhaps in group settings, or perhaps in individual settings.

There is often confusion between the work of the evangelist and the work of the eldership, and in congregations where there is no eldership, the evangelist, rightly or wrongly, picks up responsibility. Elders are there to shepherd and oversee the flock (1 Peter 5:1-4); that is not the evangelist's role. The evangelist is there to promote and encourage the Gospel (2 Timothy 4:2, etc.). I have used the imagery of the shepherd, the sheep, and the border collie. The shepherds are the elders, and the sheep are the members. The evangelist is the border collie: he barks (encourages/exhorts) at the sheep (members) at the direction of the shepherds (elders), and he barks (encourages/exhorts) at the shepherds (elders) when he sees things going on with the sheep (members).

The evangelist also promotes the Gospel by his own example of life and conduct (1 Timothy 4:12). He must recognize that he himself can change no one but himself-- but if he puts himself forward as an example of the servant of God, he will do better at persuading others to greater faithfulness.

2. Promotion of the Gospel of Christ and His Kingdom to those without.

Sometimes there is a disconnect between what the New Testament reveals and our current practices: we see great promoters of the Gospel of the New Testament focusing mostly on outsiders, and too often preachers focus exclusively on those within. It was recognized from the earliest days that all the burdens could not be borne by one man or a few men, that the word of God would be forsaken if tables were also served (Acts 6:2). Likewise, the evangelist cannot devote his energies to promoting the Word of God in a community if he is constantly expected to deal with internal issues. There is wisdom in God's plan: elders shepherding the flock give evangelists the opportunity to devote a good part of their time to promoting the Gospel, the very task they are charged to do.

This does not mean that the evangelist should not spend time with the members-- but he must recognize that his responsibility goes beyond the local church.

On the other hand, however, we cannot say that evangelism to the outside world is only the preacher's job. This is especially a danger in our modern specialized world: we have few jacks-of-all-trades anymore, and we have specific people whom we pay money to for specific purposes. We take our car in to the brake shop or the oil changing station; we go to the doctor who specializes in our particular ailment; many have people to take care of their gardens, their children, their recreation, and other such tasks. In such a climate it is tempting to "outsource" evangelism to its "specialist," the evangelist.

Yet promoting the Gospel is the responsibility of every Christian (Matthew 28:18-20), and there are many examples of "regular Christians" who were able to convert others to the faith (cf. Acts 18:25-28). In fact, in many ways today, the evangelist is the least able to do good promotion of the Gospel: he is often brought in from another location to evangelize, and therefore has not built up relationships in the community, and when it is discovered that he is a preacher, many will automatically be suspicious of his intentions (he's just telling me about Jesus so he can make more money!, etc.). "Regular members" are in better positions to promote the Gospel: they have relationships with members of the community, and their witness is perceived as more authentic, because they have nothing to gain financially from others being part of the church.

So where does the evangelist fit into evangelism? It would seem to me that the evangelist should be an example and guide of evangelism. Not dictator or ruler or any such thing, but a guide-- leading others in evangelism by laying a foundation or path, encouragement, and example. The evangelist stands in the pulpit and exhorts his fellow Christians to be active in the work, promoting God's Kingdom in their own lives. The evangelist considers ways to promote the Gospel-- door knocking, Bible correspondence courses, tracts, bulletin mailings, websites, gospel meetings, lectures in public forums, radio and/or television lessons, newspaper articles, and so on-- and works with the members to get such programs going. When such is done, and contacts and interested people begin to come around, he then can be trusted with "sealing the deal" and teaching them via Bible studies what they must do to be saved. Just as critically, if not more so, the evangelist should work with young converts to strengthen them in the faith and quickly move them from spiritual infancy to spiritual childhood, lest spiritual infant death syndrome strikes more souls.

In all matters, the evangelist must remember who his Boss is, and constantly speak with his Boss about the work and how it can be more effective (i.e. prayer). The evangelist must represent the humble servant of God, seeking not his own will or fame but in all things the advancement of God's Kingdom.

It is not easy. It is often challenging. One cannot help but get emotionally invested. There are high points and low points. We succeed sometimes and fail in others. In the end, however, if our work was not in vain in the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:58), and it is found that we were able to advance God's purposes for His Kingdom in this world, then it is more than worthwhile.

ELDV

LX: Restoration and Tradition

Do we see restoration as a continuous process or a fixed event?

Now, I am not one to stress the connection between the church and the overall "Restoration Movement" (RM). The connection is made too often when trying to blunt the force of the claims we make, attempting to place churches of Christ within the ideologies of the early nineteenth century, and not a communion with the Christians of the first century. I am no Campbellite, since I have many disagreements with Campbell on many issues.

Nevertheless, it is my strong belief that the Scriptures reveal God's intentions for His church through what is presented in the New Testament, mostly in the series of letters written to first century churches of the Mediterranean world. It is my belief that we should strive, as much as possible, to emulate what God desired from Christians in that era, since God's expectations for His servants will not change.

The difficulty, of course, is that we are now twenty centuries separated from those events. Traditions have developed over those twenty centuries that have obscured much of what God desired for His church.

In that sense I will fully own up to being a "restorationist:" I seek to restore what God always intended for His church.

But is this something we've fully accomplished?

I doubt that many among us would canonize Campbell and Stone. Those men were not inspired. They were not "prophets" in the purest sense of the term. We can (and should) appreciate their recognition of the need to restore New Testament practice, and their efforts in terms of baptism and the Lord's Supper especially toward that end. Nevertheless, neither Stone nor Campbell fully distanced their association from all the traditions piled up before and current then: instrumental music was maintained and missionary societies were promoted with great fervency. The ecumenical trend in the desires of Stone and Campbell are illustrated in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)'s full participation in the ecumenical movement. The Stone/Campbell brand of ecumenism-- all Christians united by obedience to God according to His word-- is laudable. I cannot say the same for participation in the modern ecumenical movement.

So even if we do not canonize Campbell and Stone, I must wonder if many desire to canonize the "standard church positions" of our own day. It seems to me that many have declared the work of restoration to be accomplished.

Now, I will not doubt that we've gone further-- instruments eliminated, work of the church in terms of benevolence better defined, level of congregational cooperation righted. I'm sure that according to standard perspectives, we've done well.

But what if we can go even further? What if we are still participating in many traditions that still obscure God's intentions for His church?

It's a difficult question, and one we may not want to face. After all, it's easier to continue to believe that we have a complete handle on the revelation of God, and understand all things within that revelation through the perspective we've developed.

But what are we after?

One arena in which I fear that we've maintained more tradition than truth is in "our" conceptualization of "worship." The word is thrown around constantly, and almost uniquely in reference to the assembly. People ask when your worship services are, or where it is that you worship, or how your worship was on Sunday.

Yet the New Testament does not speak of such a concept. The New Testament never speaks of a "worship service." The New Testament does not speak of Christians assembling together to "worship." These terms are only uniquely applied to the assembly later when the "catholic" church was re-defining the Christian experience in terms of the Jewish one. The cathedral became the temple, holy ground, its ministers became priests, and the weekly service became the worship service.

Now, is it inherently wrong to speak of worshiping in the assembly? No. The New Testament speaks of "spiritual worship," and it most likely has something to do with our obedient service rendered to God (John 4:24, Romans 12:1). Our assemblies are full of activities that are part of our obedient service to God, and therefore represent part of our worship. But it is not all of our worship, and we can worship God in other places in other ways in acceptable fashion. The "church assembly as uniquely worship" concept, so frequent in minds of Christians, helps to promote the "Sunday only Christian" mentality too often prevalent.

Are these traditions which we can recognize as such and perhaps decide to correct ourselves and our language at least a little bit so as to return to New Testament concepts?

Another would be the afterlife. When you open songbooks, you find copious references to spending eternity with God in heaven. Sure, this is exactly the standard belief in most of Christianity these days, but is it what the Bible teaches?

"Spending eternity with God in heaven." Search the Scriptures for that concept; John 14:1-4 comes the closest, and perhaps it may only refer to being with God in Paradise for a time. When the Bible speaks of what will happen in the future, it speaks of judgment and resurrection (John 5:28-29, Acts 17:30-31, 1 Corinthians 15).

Resurrection-- what does that mean? In the Bible, it means "life after life after death." We see this with Jesus-- He lived and was crucified on the cross (cf. Matthew 1-27). At that point, He was dead. According to His own words in Luke, He was going to Paradise, but did not ascend to the Father (Luke 23:43, John 20:17). He was dead in the flesh, but His spirit was in Paradise. Yet, on the third day, He was raised to life again-- the resurrection-- with His old body in a transformed shape, as indicated in Matthew 28, Luke 24, Mark 16, and John 20-21. When we die, we will not live in the flesh but our souls will still be alive in Paradise-- life after death. The resurrection, as described in the example of Jesus and also by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, demonstrates that we will live again in transphysical form-- life after life after death.

Our hope, according to the Bible, is to have the resurrection of life on the last day. The hope is never to be a disembodied soul with other disembodied souls-- that's what Plato, not Jesus, would teach. The hope is for the corruptible to put on incorruption, and mortality to be swallowed in immortality, and that requires the transformation of the flesh (1 Corinthians 15).

This may not be as easy to picture, as easy to understand, or even as desirable. It's more comfortable to believe in disembodied souls that have rid themselves of the flesh than to recognize that the flesh must be restored and transformed on the last day. It's more comfortable to believe (as some do) that the poor little child becomes an angel in Heaven than to recognize that we will never really become angels at all.

What will we do? Are we willing to believe that restoration is a continual practice, and that we may have the opportunity to peel away more tradition than our forefathers did, and be open to the possibility that our own descendants will peel off more traditions themselves? Or do we really think that we have a complete and fixed hold on all things true, that our perspectives are exactly that which God intended?

Let us consider 2 Peter 3:18, and continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

ELDV

LIX: Jesus, the Law, and the Gospel of the Kingdom

I have noticed, especially in the context of some discussions regarding issues of marriage, divorce, and remarriage (MDR), a recent tendency to see Jesus only through the prism of the Law of Moses. Some are teaching that Jesus and Moses taught the same thing regarding marriage matters, along with all other things.

This is not a perspective that one would gain from the account given in Matthew 19:1-9, wherein Jesus first appeals to "the beginning" and then declares that Moses gave the law regarding divorce because of the hardness of the heart of Israel, but that "from the beginning it has not been so" (Matthew 19:8).

This perspective comes more from a particular interpretation of Matthew 5:17-18, and assumptions that underlie that interpretation:

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).

Many reason from this statement that since Jesus is not going to adapt the Law in any way, everything which He will say will be in accordance with that Law.

Such an interpretation may make sense on the surface, but when one begins to investigate what Jesus continues to teach His disciples and the crowds around Him, many inconsistencies become glaring.

"Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, 'Thou shalt not kill;' and 'whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment': but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire. If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift" (Matthew 5:21-24).

Jesus quotes the Law of Moses from Exodus 20:3 and Leviticus 24:21/Numbers 35:16. The sense of the guidelines are clear enough: one should not kill one's fellow man, and to do so is to be liable for death yourself. But Jesus does not stop there-- He indicates that "I say unto you," speaking on His own authority, that they ought not even be angry with or insult their brethren.

This is not specified as a command in the Law; indeed, for Jesus to bind such upon the Law would mark Him out as a false prophet (Deuteronomy 4:2, 18:20). How can it be, then, that Moses and Jesus are saying the same thing?

"Ye have heard that it was said, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery': but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:27-28).

Jesus again quotes from the Ten Commandments, this time in Exodus 20:14. Jesus again, on His own authority, expands the realm of adultery to include not just the action but the mental desire for the action-- another matter not specified in the Law.

"It was said also, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement': but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery" (Matthew 5:31-32).

Here we come to one of the contentious passages-- Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 24:1, and yet on His own authority would seem to go further. Considering the previous examples and the examples to come, how can it be that Jesus and Moses are saying the same thing? Jesus is making deliberate contrasts between what is written in the Law and what He Himself is saying.

"Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, 'Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths': but I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one" (Matthew 5:33-37).

The contrast here is stark. The Law allows for oaths to be made, as long as one does not swear falsely and does what is sworn (Leviticus 19:12, Deuteronomy 23:23). Jesus goes plenty further: do not swear at all. Let your yes be yes and your no, no, and move on.

"Ye have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth': but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matthew 5:38-42).

Here Jesus addresses the lex talionis, or the concept of "an eye for an eye," established in the Law in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. This commandment is not to be interpreted as a mandate for action; it is universally agreed upon that the law is given not to enforce punishment as much as limit vengeance and retribution so that it fits the loss. One has no justification to take an arm for an eye, a leg for a foot, or so on. Punishment for loss should be equal to the loss.

Regardless, Jesus undermines the entire concept by teaching that no vengeance should be taken at all, and that further aid should be given freely. There is no basis for this imposition in the Law.

We can see quite clearly, therefore, that marked contrasts are being made between what was said "of old," all either explicitly or ultimately deriving from Moses' legislation, with what Jesus Himself is saying. These things were astonishing to the people, "for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes" (Matthew 7:29).

Is Jesus here changing the Law? Far from it! One could live by every precept Jesus enjoins in Matthew 5 and never violate the Law of Moses. On the other hand, to bind these precepts as part of the Law of Moses would be just as bad as loosing some of the Law, as Deuteronomy 4:2 indicates:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

For Jesus to bind what He says as part of the Law of Moses would make Him no different in kind from the Pharisees who bound plenty of traditions to "build a fence" around the Torah; if this were the case, then He has no ground to argue against the Pharisees as He does in Matthew 12:1-8, for what the Pharisees would do to the Sabbath Jesus would be doing for oaths, divorce, and punishment.

We need to reconsider what Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-18, and include also verses 19-20.

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus here is not commenting on Himself as much as condemning the Pharisees. He indicates, quite subtly, how He is not attempting to adapt or change the Law in any way, but that the Pharisees do this very thing by their traditions. He is not teaching people to break Moses' Law.

But yet what He presents in Matthew 5 itself does not correlate to Moses' teaching. How can this be?

The difficulty rests in the presupposition that whatever Jesus teaches must be part of the old covenant since He lives under the old covenant. Christians in past ages are rightly chastised for diminishing Jesus' Jewishness-- perhaps many today have tipped the balance too far the other way, and make Jesus nothing but a Jew. Neither perspective can withstand the witness of the New Testament.

Consider what Matthew says about Jesus just before the "Sermon on the Mount" in Matthew 5-7:

From that time began Jesus to preach, and to say, "Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"...And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people (Matthew 4:17, 23).

Jesus was preaching the good news of the Kingdom-- the covenant that was coming, and present in the form of the King Himself.

In reality, we universally confess that the Sermon on the Mount represents part of this good news of the Kingdom by our use of Matthew 6:33:

"But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

"His Kingdom?" Where is this understood in terms of the Law of Moses and the old covenant? How often is this verse used to speak about how Christians ought to conduct themselves in their lives?

The application of this verse to the new covenant is not in error. Far too often it is forgotten that while the events described in the Gospels transpired under the old covenant, they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John under the new. They wrote so that people could believe in Jesus or have certainty regarding the things they were taught of Him (John 20:30-31, Luke 1:3). Two of them (Matthew and John) were explicitly promised the Helper, the Holy Spirit, who was going to bring to their remembrance all things Jesus said (John 14:26). Doubtless this is true also of the other two witnesses, of themselves or of Peter and Paul with whom they worked. The Gospels, therefore, are not mere antiquities talking about a Jew living a thoroughly Jewish life teaching only Jewish matters-- the Gospels present the good news of the Kingdom and its king Jesus Christ, who did live and die according to the Law of Moses, but who taught the Gospel of the Kingdom while He was still on earth.

It is true that much of the substance of the message of the Law and the Kingdom are the same-- hence it is possible for Jesus to affirm that one who understood how all the Law was summed up in the need to love God and neighbor was "not far from the Kingdom of God" (Mark 12:28-34). Nevertheless, we should not assume that the Kingdom and the Law are in complete harmony, nor that Jesus was speaking novelties: in many instances He returns to the original intentions of God.

Such is clear in Matthew 19:3-12:

And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"
And he answered and said, "Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,
'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?'
So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
They say unto him, "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?"
He saith unto them, "Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery."
The disciples say unto him, "If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."
But he said unto them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matthew 19:3-12).

Notice some important concepts at work here:

1. Jesus bases His statements on "the beginning," returning to God's intentions for mankind as exemplified in Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:24).

2. When the Pharisees press Him about what Moses says, Jesus indicates that the law from Moses was not based in God's desire but the hardness of Israel's heart (Matthew 19:8). Jesus does not say, "traditions of Moses," but "Moses" himself.

3. The disciples certainly do not understand Jesus' teaching as exactly what Moses taught-- they could not see why any would marry if divorce were only for porneia!

4. Jesus' statement of endurance explicitly mentions the Kingdom of Heaven-- quite odd if He's just talking about Jews and the Law. He is likely speaking regarding His own celibacy for the purposes of establishing God's will on earth.

It's hard to see how Matthew 19:3-12 demonstrates that Moses and Jesus taught the same things. There is no room for David and Solomon's polygamy or the freedom to divorce that marked the Jews in Jesus' interpretation. Jesus does not say, "well, this is what Moses intended". He clearly shows that the Pharisees have accurately interpreted what Moses said by the concession of verse 8 (Moses did allow for divorce, but only because you have hard hearts). He then applies God's intentions as will be manifest in His Kingdom-- one man one woman for life.

Another relevant example is found in Mark 7:14-23:

And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, "Hear me all of you, and understand: there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear."
And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable.
And he saith unto them, "Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught?"
This he said, making all meats clean.
And he said, "That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man" (Mark 7:14-23).

Let us first understand the situation and then Mark's interpretation. Jesus is being critiqued by the Pharisees since His disciples did not wash their hands (Mark 7:1-5). Jesus takes the opportunity to teach the truth present in the Gospel of the Kingdom: defilement is not something you obtain from foods that pass through the body and are excreted, for defilement comes from the evil intentions of the heart.

This is as far as Jesus pressed the issue. Yet Mark, writing his Gospel under the new covenant, makes his inspired commentary in verse 19:

This he said, making all meats clean.

Mark is drawing out for us the inescapable conclusion from what Jesus says: if defilement does not really come from food, but from what people think and do, then all those meats called unclean in Leviticus 11 are not inherently unclean, just considered so for God's purposes for Israel. Mark provides the same conclusion for us that Paul provides in Romans 14: nothing is unclean of itself. But notice that Mark does not say that such is just his later interpretation of what Jesus said-- he indicates that He established all meats were clean. While Mark writes the commentary, he is being guided by Jesus in an attempt to understand what Jesus was revealing.

What do we say to all of this? In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus is telling His Jewish audience that He has no intention of adapting the Law itself-- after all, it is not adaptable, per Deuteronomy 4:2. Instead, He is preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, a message that can resonate with Jews but fully and finally establishes God's intentions for mankind. This Gospel is highlighted throughout Jesus' ministry, and used as the basis of teaching Christians in the new covenant how to conduct themselves in life. What Jesus says in Matthew 5, Matthew 19, and Mark 7 find their parallels in Romans 12, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Corinthians 8, and James 5:12, and not in anything espoused by the Law.

It is therefore a false assumption that since Jesus lived according to the Law that everything He promoted was according to the Law. He did live according to the Law and thus fulfilled it, as Matthew 5:17-18 establishes, but He taught the Gospel of the Kingdom for those who would hear. Let us be those who are willing to hear Jesus and do what He says!

ELDV